DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“In other words. a police force by any other name. So much for your society without laws, police or prisons.”
But has the SPGB actually claimed that socialism could operate without rules, and by extension those necessary enforcement of them? I’m sure individual members may have said things like this, but what has been the party position?
What is generally understood as a “police force” is something that is not under the control of the community it polices but in a position of power above it. That is the difference. So yes there would have to be people that enforced rules, but these people would have to be strictly mandated and answerable to the wider democratic society. Not a coercive “force” above society.
These kinds of ideas aren’t limited to the SPGB, or even socialists. For example, read Pettit’s “Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government”
“And who will enforce these ‘matters’”
Those that have been mandated and delegated to do it. There’s no great mystery to it.
“I’d like to think that socialist humanity could find a solution to disputes different to the manner in which dogs resolve their disputes over the ownership of a bone.”
The dogs fighting over a bone is a case of domination.
A democratic and cooperative republic deciding upon rules and enforcing sanctions isn’t. Since those who face the sanctions are also a part of the rule-making body.
Socialism won’t be a Smurfland where everyone agrees and nobody goes against decisions already made. It doesn’t need to be. All that is required is that the means of making the rules, and the means of enforcing them, are carried out by the whole of the society – not some special elite that rules from above.
But before we even get to the stage of rules and enforcing them, people’s behaviour is shaped by the norms of their society. As socialism has eliminated market competition between people, and as it requires a co-operative and non-dominating ethos to operate, we can expect this form of social pressure to shape how people act. Trying to be the big man or the boss would be frowned upon and ridiculed – the opposite of what occurs today.
I don’t know how useful Graeber is all of this. Probably anthropologists like Christoper Boehm (who was mentioned in this review of the latest Graeber book https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020s/2022/no-1413-may-2022/david-graebers-false-dawn/ ) and neo-republicans like Philip Pettit and Quentin Skinner have more useful things to say.
“I wouldn’t have thought socialist society would need “men (or women) with clubs” to deal with traffic offences.”
You might think that, but then you’ve never seen my driving!
Seriously though, removing a licence would be on the spectrum of what could be considered “coercion”.
“Obviously, we’d not reach for the authoritarian tool of men with clubs and fines: but, given a need to have rules that enjoy support, what to do when a recalcitrant minority refuse to abide?”
I’m guessing that some might not like to hear it, but socialism – like every human society – would have to feature some form of coercion. The reason being that not everyone will choose to go along with the rules all the time, and as the example of irresponsible (and potentially fatal) driving shows, the community would sometimes need to take coercive action to protect itself from such people.
The difference being that in socialism the coercive forces wouldn’t take the form of a special body above society in general and would instead be democratically accountable to it. This could, in extreme cases, involve (delegated, accountable and recallable) “men with clubs”, but given that such bodies would not be in a permanent position above society (like a standing army or a police force), I don’t think such actions would be “authoritarian”.
OK, this is an audio podcast and not a video but I have been listening a lot to these people after I discovered the Kautsky episode.
The latest edition is about Gerrard Winstanley and the English Revolution
https://pod.link/1544487624This academic paper by one of the contributors is worth reading too:
https://www.pdcnet.org/soctheorpract/content/soctheorpract_2021_0047_0004_0603_0627Unfortunately, you may need to have access to a subscribed institutions library to read it though..
“I do not know why the Socialist Party selected and spent money on Word Press”
FWIW the version of Drupal the former site was running on needed to be updated for security, updating between versions of Drupal is a task more suited for professional level web developers, as there was no-longer no-longer anyone on the committee with those abilities I guess that is one of the reasons the choice to move to WordPress was made – I was not party to the decision. It’s true, some functionality has been lost, but too late now…
“What on earth are you going on about?”
I was trying to work out how you were linking the statement “people don’t like change” to the response you gave.
“Reference was being made to the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism where the overwhelming majority, the peasantry, had no say in the matter.”
Yes good. Capitalism didn’t come about through choice but force.
“Capitalism didn’t require a politically conscious and overwhelming majority to bring it about. Only a relatively small and sufficiently motivated minority prepared to take risks.”
So you’re saying that people don’t like change but a minority was able to enact change against the wishes of that majority?
To dump a few more into the bucket these are two channels that I am also enjoying watching and keeping up to date with.
https://www.youtube.com/@WHATISPOLITICS69
https://www.youtube.com/@carefreewandering
And this is my own channel, make of it what you will
I watched that “Free World Charter” video again.
I appreciate that there’s a subjective element with these things but I’m actually surprised people liked it. The production and presentation is tacky and the actual argument is ass backwards. At least the bit “Let’s imagine…. underwater cities!” is of comedic value.
The video mentions freedom. Why not start there? The idea of Socialism as a society non-domination has a lot going for it both in terms of how to express a critique and also in terms of how to motivate people.
The vast majority of people are dominated by a minority group not because of the existence of money, but because that minority own and control access to the means of production. “These guys are fucking us over, and this is why and what we can do about it” makes for a stronger political message. No?
Probably recorded Zoom meetings wasn’t what this thread was intended but just came across this and am posting this here so I don’t forget about it. Yet to watch it but the content seems relevant enough.
This is a panel discussion entitled “Envisioning a Socialism for the 21st Century”. Participants include Andew Kliman. No doubt there will be much to disagree with, but worth a watch to see what other people are saying at the moment.
Maybe this channel is interesting
